to the Pacific, and that we see new equipment in India, new aircraft carriers. We see the development of a new capability in China in terms of naval forces.

And, really, I cannot tell you how expressed it was to the two of us as we traveled through the Pacific this year, that there is really a fear there now that if we leave the arms race will be such that everyone must get into it. Even Australia is redeploying their forces, as you know. The Indonesians are thinking about it. The people who have been willing to rely upon us for a long period of time wonder if we are going to be reliable in this period in the Pacific.

So I hope that we can understand that that is of the same priority, at least, as the Mediterranean and other parts of the world. Clearly in our minds, Senator Inouye's and my mind, it is. In terms of Subic Bay process, do you see any additional needs for funds in this fiscal year? We have got supplemental coming now, soon, to deal with the Philippines and the Subic Bay problems.

Mr. GARRETT. In 1992?

Senator STEVENS. In 1992.

Mr. GARRETT. That could very well be the case, Senator Stevens. Senator STEVENS. That was indicated to us, but again we have not heard anything about it. We have not had any indications and no supplementals coming forward. And I gather in this process that we are not going to get any, but I want to encourage you to present-well I do not want to encourage you, I want to request the two of you to present to Senator Inouye and me any details of additional funds that are necessary to complete the relocation from Subic Bay, and to meet our commitments in the Philippines as we do.

Mr. GARRETT. We will provide that for the record, sir. [The information follows:]

In fiscal year 1992 and the first quarter of fiscal year 1993, we anticipate that the relocation from Subic Bay will involve an additional requirement for $28 million in MPN funds for personnel moves, along with additional O&M,N funding of $32 million for foreign national severance, $26 million for civilian personnel relocation, and $94 million for the transportation of equipment and preparation of receiving sites. A total of $26 million from prior year O&M funds is set aside to cover foreign national severance. Further, savings from activities which drawdown and phase out during calendar year 1992 will be available to offset our relocation costs. Separately, severance pay within Non-appropriated Fund and DBOF accounts total $28 million. While still under review, MĈON will be required on Guam. CINCPAC's current estimate is approximately $300 million, with as much as $190 million required in the fiscal year 1992-93 timeframe.

Senator STEVENS. I too have some questions about the industrial base concept. I think that has been covered. And the modernization, I want to give you some questions on that and the sealift. My last comment to you would be that it is obvious that the World War II veterans on this committee have 100-percent agreement concerning the process that we are going through right now. We find ourselves reluctant participants in a process to bring about precipitous reduction in our military capability at a time when there is still great instability in the world. And I do not know, none of us know what we can do to stop it except to continue to urge you to make certain that what we do maintains our capabilities.

I seriously question, now, whether we should have yielded, Admiral, last year when this committee suggested we stop the Seawolf

program and go to the two attack submarines. I think that that would have been a better transitional phase than what we are facing right now. And the impact on the industrial base, we would have had a little bit more time to think out our process. Have you examined that once again?

Admiral KELSO. Well we are looking at it right now, Senator, as to how we proceed from here in light of the decisions that we made, and we will look at all the possibilities. I just do not know the answer to that at this point in time. We will have to answer back to the Secretary of Defense.

Senator STEVENS. I understand that, and it is a very complicated procedure we must go through. But clearly in terms of our ability to turn this process around should some great destabilizing force come onto the screen, I think we are equally worried about the industrial base. I do not have an industrial base State, neither does Senator Inouye, but we, I think, understand the impact of not having it if we must reverse these decisions we have made so far, or that at least have been presented to us so far.

I want to thank you all for coming. We should have a vote going on. I have not heard it. But the chairman has asked me to thank you and indicate to you that we know the subcommittee faces some difficult challenges this year. We want to all work together to assure that the historical build-down that is taking place in our defense establishment is conducted as prudently as possible. And we want to call upon you for your candid advice and invite to you to approach either or both of us at any time when we can be of assistance to you.

Again, we thank all of you, General Mundy, Secretary Garrett, Admiral Kelso.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

[CLERK'S NOTE.-Additional questions submitted by subcommittee members, together with the Department's responses, will appear in the appendix portion of the hearings.]

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. The subcommittee will stand in recess until the hour of 10, Thursday, March 5, when we will hear testimony from the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army. [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., Tuesday, March 3, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Thursday, March 5.]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1992

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Inouye, DeConcini, Bumpers, Stevens, Garn, Kasten, D'Amato, Rudman, Cochran, Specter, and Domenici.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P.W. STONE, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. This morning the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations will receive testimony from Michael P.W. Stone, the Secretary of the Army, and Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, Chief of Staff of the Army, on the subject of the Army's fiscal year 1993 budget request. On behalf of the committee, gentlemen, welcome.

Mr. Secretary, today is 1 day short of a year since the last time you appeared before this committee. Who could have predicted the historic events of the past 12 months? Although we have observed the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union, the economic and fiscal challenges within our own country compel us to reevaluate the funding levels of our national and international security programs. While we may rejoice in the move toward democratic government in the Commonwealth of Independent States and throughout Eastern Europe, the world still faces a security environment that is both uncertain and potentially very dangerous.

I am particularly concerned with the issue of weapons accountability. Of particular concern is the gathering certainty that hostile or politically unstable nations may one day try to hold the world hostage with tactical and strategic nuclear weapons previously under the control of Moscow. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses what I believe to be the greatest single danger to our national security today.

In the face of these many uncertainties, I am very wary of the pace with which some of my colleagues believe we should reduce our military establishment. We can ill afford to disband the most

52-776 0-92-7

trained and ready Army in our Nation's history in the vain quest for a utopia which has yet to arrive.

General, your message of "no more Task Force Smiths" is one that should ring true for every American. It is a theme which I have taken up repeatedly on the Senate floor in warnings to my colleagues. While there are legitimate domestic needs that must be met, there can be no substitute for a strong national defense. Maintenance of the national defense is the first duty of every government, and I for one will not contribute to its wholesale dismantlement. The Army must never be forced to draw down so rapidly that it again sends a tiny, ill-prepared and ill-equipped force into harm's way.

Let me assure you that the President's recommendation that we reduce our defense spending by a further $50 billion through 1995 will receive scrutiny by this committee in the months ahead. The Army's fiscal year 1993 share of this proposed reduction spans all accounts, but is particularly pronounced in its procurement budget where a reduction of $3.7 billion is proposed. I believe that this is a much larger percentage reduction than your sister services.

The Army's fiscal year 1993 reduction is 18 times the size of the Navy's proposed $200 million reduction, and is in glaring contrast with the Air Force's $3.7 billion increase. Under the President's proposal the procurement program has been reduced so much that the Army will field no new equipment in the next several years, other than a smattering of Black Hawk helicopters, trucks, and communications equipment.

Mr. Secretary and General Sullivan, the subcommittee looks forward to hearing your views on these and other subjects. Before proceeding with your opening statements, I am pleased to have with us Senator Kasten.

Senator Kasten has another appointment to keep, so may I call upon you for your statement, sir.

Senator KASTEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Let me join Senator Inouye in welcoming you and say that we on the committee want to work with you during the next few months.

HEAVY EQUIPMENT TRANSPORT VEHICLES

I want to thank you, first of all, for coming to Wisconsin recently, for taking time out of your schedule to go to Oshkosh, WI, to visit the Oshkosh Truck Co. I was happy to have visited the plant too. But I want to thank you for the kind words that you said to the people in Oshkosh.

Having said that, let me say that I am surprised that the Army's budget for fiscal year 1993 does not include funding for heavy equipment transport vehicles, for the HET's. It is my understanding that last summer, that the Army, in fact, approved a new mission for the HET. It will now serve a dual function: to recover immobile tanks and also to transport its main tanks and other tracked vehicles to the front lines. The Department of the Defense is now requiring each HET Army company to field, I understand, 96 vehicles, which is 60 more than were originally planned, which would mean a total of an additional 720 HET's.

But last year's appropriations, however, does not sufficiently cover that additional 720 HET vehicles. So I cannot understand why the Army has not asked for additional funding to procure these needed vehicles. Last year during these hearings you applauded the performance and reliability of the HET in Desert Storm, and repeated that again in Wisconsin.

Last year you indicated, at the beginning of Desert Storm the Army lacked sufficient means to transport its main battle tanks to the front lines. That is exactly what the HET is for. Let me also add that the HET is a true cost saver from a budgetary perspective. It can haul the Army's M-1A1 tank for $500 per mile less, I am told from your studies, than driving the tank on its own power. It is important to remember that we have got to be fiscally responsible, but I think we can also be concerned about our national defense at the same time as being fiscally responsible. And that is the balance you are always trying to work. So as we begin the process of reducing the size of our military, our mission will rely more and more upon a highly mobile fighting force and the HET will help us get there.

And I simply want to work closely with you over the next several months, and with the chairman and the ranking member, to see if we can work through this apparent inconsistency in the budget request and some of the statements that we have been making.

GUARD VERSUS ACTIVE FORCES

Let me finally say I had gone through the charts with you last year, but also with General Powell and others, with regard to Active versus the Guard. And that is probably one of the biggest challenges that you are going to have. Whether or not we can start to shift some of those Guard roles, whether we can do things differently, I am not sure. It is of great concern in Wisconsin with the 32d.

I intend to meet with you to talk in more detail about this, but I look forward to working with you and trying to work through this very difficult problem with regard to the Guard forces versus the Active forces. And whether it is possible to start to alter or upgrade some of the missions of some of the Guard forces in order that they can be more closely compatible with the missions of the Active forces.

But, Mr. Secretary, I simply want to say this to you personally, and I look forward to working with you with regard to both issues. I thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, before I call upon you, I would like the record to show that at this moment the following committees are meeting. This would give you an idea why the turnout seems to be rather sparse.

Members of this subcommittee are members of the following committees that are meeting at this time: Veterans Committee, Armed Services Committee, the Environmental Protection Committee, Children, Health, Family, Drugs and Alcohol of the Human Resources Committee, Post Office Committee, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, and the Banking Committee. So you will see people going in and out. I hope you will understand, sir.